Jump to content

z-warfare

Members
  • Posts

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by z-warfare

  1. Originally posted by michael kenny:

    Hmmm........where have I seen that theory advanced before? Surely it is Jason's original idea and not something he read but again forgot to source?

    http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=39

    So someone else thinks the same thing. Doesn't that ADD credence to what JasonC is saying?

    And if TDs neither rocked nor were ineffective, what do you think they were?

    [ December 26, 2006, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: z-warfare ]

  2. Sure it's something with the engine. But the ballistics of the 37 and 75 are very different... wait, does this mean that any gun in CMAK might theoretically be 2 different guns? Is that how different shell muzzle velocities are actually represented, 'below the hood'?

    And how do 3-mg pillboxes work?

    Weird, weird weird. You'd think it'd be simpler to have two distinct guns capable of being damaged independently, but i sure wouldn't know.

  3. Sounds like a great book. The difference between 6 and 2 tanks or TDs doesn't seem too much, though, against 48 AFVs of any type...

    Sources and citations aside, Elsenborn area aside, could you elaborate your view about the ineffectiveness of non-halftrack US TDs? I think we're bogged in a pissing contest, to mix metaphors.

  4. I will argue that 86% are made up, not 94%. Also, crap it certainly may be, but the point i got out of it was the difference between firing, essentially, from cover versus 1-to-1 confrontations... which i imagined might apply to the tank 'hunting pack' debate. If it's a debate. And heck, it just sounds cool... "Lanchester Combat Models"? C'mon!

    Even if it is the phrenology of military science.

  5. What got my attention in that paper was the distinction in 3.2 there between "aimed" and "unaimed" fire, or units firing from dispersed cover and units firing together, not the idea that it might be 'true' or anything close to a realistic model. It is indeed an extreme oversimplification, and i never realized it was accepted as anything more than a thought experiment.

  6. I've been playing around with things like PTRDs and satchel charges and the like (versus Ferdinands, for ****s and giggles) lately and i would say that sometimes, a squad in what is to all appearances a perfect position to lob a satchel charge just... doesn't. Then after standing there they inevitably get walloped by the vehicle about 50 seconds later. I would agree that it comes to plain bad luck. I guess it makes up for the other four-fifths of instances when a 20-odd point engineer squad takes out a 300+ point AFV.

    Also i will advise that a force of 60 PTRD teams can button, but apparently not actually destroy a big cat.

    [ November 23, 2006, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: z-warfare ]

×
×
  • Create New...